Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 85 86 [87] 88 89 ... 110  Next >
1721
but didn't people see something fly up in the air (which NASA said were space ships)?

Mere props and fireworks.

Mere speculation. Can you demonstrate fireworks which cause the sorts of shockwaves that Huntsville experienced during the Saturn V tests?

Have you never felt the shockwave from a firework erupting a little too close for comfort?

1722
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 14, 2014, 09:31:15 PM »
An anecdote !=evidence. A spy agency was caught spying and you want to use this as evidence that scientists are not doing science. It makes no sense.

Actually, the analogy shows that a spy agency inserting an undetectable backdoor into the algorithm of an open source project is evidence that open source software can be undetectably tainted.

But you have no evidence of any such tainting and other than this anecdote have no reason based in fact to believe that the code is not working as intended.

If we were to grant your point we are now forced to incorporate an entirely new and substantial entity into your conspiracy whose ability to operate with 100% clandestine efficiency is undreamt of in any other field of endeavor in human history. Please pipe the bloat on to your conspiracy theory.

It just takes one nefarious protocol/software package being written for moon bounce experiments, which gets passed around from government observatory to government observatory, when the experiments are repeated. I doubt every such researcher is reinventing the wheel and programming software from scratch that interacts with the hardware. There are standard protocols and software packages which get shared between observatories.

1723
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 14, 2014, 09:20:29 PM »
I have a feeling that part of the review/testing process is to check the results of the new code against the results of the old code.  Discrepancies in the results would likely raise suspicions.

What if the original code was tainted?

Quote
Ummm...  First of all, WSJT is not used for moon bounce experiments.  It's used for long distance HAM radio communication where bouncing off the atmosphere, a meteor ion trail or the moon result in weak signals and/or low signal to noise ratios.

Secondly, by your reasoning, no on who has ever gone to college can be trusted because most colleges and/or students receive some sort of government funding or aid.

Actually, university student research can't be trusted either. If a university is government funded, the government can easily tell them "we want you to bounce a laser off of the Apollo retoreflector with the university observatory's quadrillion-watt laser you have on loan, using this here software package designed for this purpose," and wa-la, it's done. Another paper to prove that America achieved moon victory in the summer of 1969.

Quote
Are you suggesting that outside auditors, such as Arthur Andersen are completely trustworthy?   Also, did you know the the MCI scandal was uncovered by internal auditors?

By rule if thumb and standard practice, audits by external groups are more creditable than an internal audit. If a company conducts solely internal audits, that would be a red flag for investors. Financial statements are more credible if an external auditor evaluates them and agrees that they are accurate.

1724
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 14, 2014, 09:01:34 PM »
An anecdote !=evidence. A spy agency was caught spying and you want to use this as evidence that scientists are not doing science. It makes no sense.

Actually, the analogy showing a spy agency inserting an undetectable backdoor into the algorithm of an open source project is evidence that open source software can be undetectably tainted.

1725
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 14, 2014, 04:54:52 AM »
Tom, I'm not sure if you understand how open source software works.  Perhaps you should ask Parsifal explain it to you some time.

Will Parsifal tell me that all open source software is reviewed by top experts and that there is no possible way to insert slight variances in the coding or the math involved to cause a delay or change the result of an output?

Quote
Why should someone automatically distrust a weak signal HAM radio communication protocol written by an astrophysicist who worked at several national observatories?
 

Because we want to know if those national observatories are honest when they do their moon bounce experiments.

We can't trust someone who works for those national observatories. That is a tainted source.

Quote
???  So you're saying that internal audits never find any problems or that GAO auditors shouldn't be trusted to track down fraud, waste or abuse within government agencies?

The GAO auditing the Army is a whole lot more legitimate than the Army auditing itself. The GAO can't be truly trustworthy, however, since it is still part of the government. It is still possible that someone high up at the GAO would have incentive to cover things up in some situation, perhaps at request of the president, or as not to cause embarrassment to the country.

1726
but didn't people see something fly up in the air (which NASA said were space ships)?

Mere props and fireworks.

1727
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 13, 2014, 07:28:52 PM »
It is a story which shows why open source code cannot be trusted simply because it is reviewed by the community. Things can be hidden in plain sight. This runs against your justification that the code must be untainted because it is open source.

That the programmer receives a paycheck from government observatories is another, separate discrediting point. Legitimate evidences comes from external sources. Per the previous example; a study by an Army accountant proving that there was no corruption in Army finances is in no way valid.

1728
As I stated, legitimate evidence comes from outside sources. Pauling's work is vindicated by other people who are not Pauling. There is not just one single man showing benefits from Vitamin C.

Was the NBC segment showing that people have been cured of cancer with Vitamin C IV therapy funded by the Vitamin C industry? Are the many people claiming benefit from Vitamin C little more than shills?

What about all of those university and clinical research papers I linked? Were those institutions paid off by the Chinese Vitamin C industry to write those papers?

1729
Nowhere. Space ships do not exist.

1730
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 13, 2014, 04:40:35 PM »
Suspicion in 2007 != proof. Programmers looked at the code up and down and couldn't find where the NSA tainted it. It was argued by defenders that the random key generator was 'random enough' given the time and hardware limited constraints an average public-private key needs to be generated, and that it was hard to create something truly mathematically random. If you throw more time and computing resources at random number generation, it was argued, the number would of course be more random. No direct evidence of foul play could be found. There was never any proof of a backdoor or malicious intent. The tool could be called 'weak' at worst. Suspicions stayed suspicions and the tool continued to be used world wide. Only until the Snowden leaks occurred was the tool renounced.

From a more recent 2014 article:

http://www.itworldcanada.com/post/second-nsa-security-tool-further-weakens-rsas-cryptography-kit

Quote
experts had previously aired suspicions about Dual Elliptic Curve, but it was only after Snowden’s leak of NSA documents that RSA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology renounced the technology.

If there was actual proof of a back door the tool would have been renounced in 2007. Programmers had the code, right there in front of them, with hundreds of people in the security community out to put the NSA's head on a stake, and couldn't find where it was tainted. Yet we're supposed to trust "code reviews".

1731
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 13, 2014, 07:53:57 AM »
Well, now that programmers know that that there may be suspicious code in the software, they have a better idea of what to look for in the next review.

The point is that an entire world of programmers missed it in a very public open source security project used by millions of computers. Yet you are telling me that, simply because it it open source, that Joe Taylor's somewhat more obscure software project has probably been vetted so that all math is perfectly sound, the code is constructed to flow instantly without any subtle delays, and there are no hidden functions, all without the software reviewers, if it was even ever looked over, knowing what to look for.

Quote
Yes, because everyone who has ever worked for the government, including myself, is a member of the conspiracy,  ::)

If you were working for the Army accounting office and gave us a study proving that there was no corruption in Army finances, your work would absolutely be invalid.

Legitimate evidence comes from an outside source - external auditors, peer review by unconnected persons, etc. This should not be difficult to understand.

1732
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 12, 2014, 11:50:46 AM »
;
What about the HAM radio moon bounces?  Were they all government connected?
http://www.k4lrg.org/Projects/K4MSG_EME/

The software they're pushing was programmed by Joseph Taylor, a hireling who works at several government funded observatories.
First of all, I'm not sure that I'd refer to a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist as "a hireling". 

Secondly, so what?  Did the government tell Taylor to write the HAM radio software?

Thirdly, the WSJT protocol software is open source, so everyone is free to examine, or even contribute to, the source code to see for themselves if the protocol does what it claims.

Just because it's open source, it doesn't make it impervious. As I recall it was recently leaked by the Snowden documents that the NSA snuck code into public cryptographic standards by using highly complex and indecipherable advanced mathematics which only few could understand, and written in an inconvenient way. The random number generator produced keys which seemed random but were actually subtly not. This allowed the NSA, knowing how the number was tainted, to calculate the private key from a public key.

Since it was open source, everyone made the same literal justification you made in defense of legitimacy, the software passed several "code reviews," and the world proceeded to use it, basically giving the NSA free reign to access the most sensitive computers and networks as they pleased, without needing to hack anything.

The mere fact that this software was produced by someone receiving checks from the government invalidates its use as a tool for demonstrating the honesty of the government.

1733
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 08, 2014, 04:21:59 AM »
What about the HAM radio moon bounces?  Were they all government connected?
http://www.k4lrg.org/Projects/K4MSG_EME/

The software they're pushing was programmed by Joseph Taylor, a hireling who works at several government funded observatories.

Quote
So what?  I thought there was only a spaceflight conspiracy or has it's scope somehow broadened?  If so, I would love to see some evidence, otherwise this has to be consigned to the trash heap of tin foil hats.

The government's interest in bouncing lasers and radio waves off of the moon are part of the developments leading up to the Apollo missions. In fact, after the Apollo 11, the government went around claiming that a specially developed quadrillion-watt ruby laser they developed was able to transmit beams out of the earth's atmosphere, bounce it off of the Apollo reflector and return to earth. This "proved" to the world that Apollo 11 actually occurred, and stands as one of the first things people jump to when looking for proof of the Apollo missions, neglecting to understand that this proof comes straight from the horse's mouth.

1734
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth
« on: December 08, 2014, 03:10:50 AM »
Then why can you not drill a hole directly from the north pole and the south pole?[/url]

Yes, you could. The South Pole is technically beneath the North Pole in the Flat Earth model. The magnetic field lines rise and spread out at the North pole and don't intersect with the earth until beyond the Ice Wall (and some parts in the ocean).

The needle of a compass always aligns with the magnetic field lines in its area.

Quote
And what about the sun? Would there be two suns to make the northern "hemisphere" the same heat as the southern "hemisphere"?

The earth is laid out similar to the United Nations logo. The sun is circling clockwise over the earth. The sun's path also changes radius throughout the year to create the seasons. At Summer Solstice the Sun is traveling near the Tropic of Cancer to give the Northern Hemiplane its long days and hot summers and the Southern Hemiplane it's short days and cold winters. At Winter Solstice the sun is traveling near the Tropic of Capricorn to give the Nothern Hemiplane its short days and cold winters and the Southern Hemiplane its long days and hot summers.

Quote
And if it were like that, what about gravity? As you guys claimed that the earth is accelerating upwards by 9.8 m/s/s, so the water on the southern "hemisphere" should just fall off.

The water is contained by the Ice Wall at the coast of Antarctica, like a bowl.

Quote
Then what does the other side contain?

The matter is highly debated. Some believe it to be just rocks. Others question the concept of an "other side".

Quote
And what would you see if you continue to walk south when you arrive Antartica?

This is unknown. Some believe the earth is finite and one would eventually encounter an edge. Others believe the earth is infinite and that we live on an eternal plane which bisects the universe as a fundamental part of its geometry.

1735
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 08, 2014, 02:52:51 AM »
I recall a large thread on the .org forum where we challenged Round Earthers to find a radar or laser bounce moon experiment which was not connected to NASA or the US government, or its ilk space agencies abroad. Out of 15+ experiments we looked at, all were connected in some way.

1736
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 05, 2014, 09:33:58 PM »
Radar bounce experiments are typically government funded or NASA affiliated.

1737
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:03:59 AM »
The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.
Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.

Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.

Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20o N and 50o S please. Why don't you get the same value?

What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?
It doesn't really matter, but for simplicity, assume that it's solar noon on the day of an equinox?

So what is the angle of the sun at those latitudes?

1738
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: November 30, 2014, 03:24:26 PM »
The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.
Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.

Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.

Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20o N and 50o S please. Why don't you get the same value?

What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?

1739
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: November 30, 2014, 06:34:52 AM »
The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.
Okay, so then you should be able  to show that the 19th century methods assume a round earth and get a "big" solar system, say the earth orbits the sun at about a radius of 93 million miles, but these process in EnaG should be more accurate and produce much smaller distances.

Please show us the correct way to measure the distance between the earth and the sun. Remember we've already reviewed EnaG and found Rowbotham totally wrong when we critiqued EnaG.

The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.

1740
Flat Earth General / Re: How many people are in on the conspiracy?
« on: November 30, 2014, 05:25:59 AM »
The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 85 86 [87] 88 89 ... 110  Next >